the PORTGATE thread, where do you stand?

[Cosmoline]

have a manager who has a cousin in AQ? And DPI employs a lot of Americans, apparently.

Is the "risk" here really any greater than other risks we are willing to take every day? All of life is full of risks. But isolationism has its own high costs, and won't eliminate risk.

It's far less likely that AQ would find a willing participant among an established British or Dutch port managment company.

Refusing to let a bunch of yahoos who approved of the TALIBAN just a few years ago run our ports is not "isolationism." I've put up with a lot of nonsense from the GW administration. But to have them try to cram this load of excrement down our gullets, then have their spin doctors claim we're "racist" or isolationist for objecting is OVER THE LINE.

The one thing I could always say about GW was that he would never give in to the terrorists. I can't say that anymore, and my support for him is now at an end. Thankfully the GOP leadership seems to be coming to the same conclusion. Just like George I, this idiot has chosen his Arab friends over us. He's more concerned with avoiding an insult to the Gulf states than protecting the ports. He does not deserve to be President.

 

[ArmedBear]

No... The only "risk" I see with this issue is to Democrats; whether America will see through their partisanship of this issue! Even the California Dems are weighing in with pontifical judgment on Eastern ports and UAE control, while their western ports are 100% foreign operated! Can you say hypocrite? Thy name is Democrat!

And these are the same Democrats who have been blasting the Bush administration for a long time for using the threat of terrorism for political purposes, and for exaggerating the threat.

The GOP wouldn't have a chance in hell, were it not for the current "leadership" of their opposition!

 

[Biker]

No... The only "risk" I see with this issue is to Democrats; whether America will see through their partisanship of this issue! Even the California Dems are weighing in with pontifical judgment on Eastern ports and UAE control, while their western ports are 100% foreign operated! Can you say hypocrite? Thy name is Democrat!

Well CD, seems to me that a lot of Repubs are not too happy about this deal either. Fact is, some're gettin' downright testy about the whole thing.

Did someone mention "hypocrite"? Guess there's plenty o' that particular medicine to go around.
Biker

 

[longeyes]

The Deal is The Deal. No one is saying never trade with Arabs or Muslims. No one is saying Arabs or Muslims can't own anything in the U.S. This is about WHICH ASSETS, WHICH OWNERSHIP, WHICH DEAL. It is very specific. It is about ceding control of vital interests when we don't have to and shouldn't. We don't have to hand over the keys to the house in order to win friends and allies. That is absurd, ridiculous, shameful, cowardly; it is in THE INTEREST OF MUSLIM NATIONS to ally with us to fight radical Islam and global terrorism. We don't have to BUY their support with bad deals and, much worse, pretend that we are helping to fight terrorism by solidifyng commercial contacts that benefit the few rather than the many. I heard at least two of the Bush machiavels yesterday telling me that we desperately needed the UAE because it was a "valued ally," then told we are racists or nativists to oppose The Deal. That, following up on Bush's eagerness to veto a deal he supposedly hadn't known anything about, flipped a switch in my head about Bush and friends. NO MAS.

 

[Cosmoline]

Cosmoline-

Is there any reason to believe that the Europeans (including Brits) with large Muslim populations and governments hamstrung by their own political correctness, are a safer bet than international business types from Dubai?

Yes. They may have large Mulsim populations, but their management firms employ very few if any of them. There is a built-in security system inherent in such firms. Any Muslim they do hire is going to get screened by their own security people and going to have to blend in with the non-Muslim staff. There are no such safeguards in the UAE. Indeed in that case a GOVERNMENT that supported the TALIBAN is running the show. They own most of the company.

I know some of the international business types from Dubai. Like I said I think they're fine and I think we can do business with each other. But this is asking too much. Beyond the surface of westernization this is still a deeply alien nation we're talking about. That's not bad or good in and of itself. It's fine if they worship an alien diety and have bizarre notions about the future of the planet. We can still trade. But we can't let them run our ports. It's really simply. Think about it for a second--THESE GUYS RECOGNIZED THE TALIBAN! That should scare the bejesus out of you right there.

 

[ArmedBear]

It's far less likely that AQ would find a willing participant among an established British or Dutch port managment company.

Refusing to let a bunch of yahoos who approved of the TALIBAN just a few years ago run our ports is not "isolationism." I've put up with a lot of nonsense from the GW administration. But to have them try to cram this load of excrement down our gullets, then have their spin doctors claim we're "racist" or isolationist for objecting is OVER THE LINE.

The one thing I could always say about GW was that he would never give in to the terrorists. I can't say that anymore, and my support for him is now at an end. Thankfully the GOP leadership seems to be coming to the same conclusion. Just like George I, this idiot has chosen his Arab friends over us. He's more concerned with avoiding an insult to the Gulf states than protecting the ports. He does not deserve to be President.

I might agree with you, except that I don't think I can make that judgment yet.

Perhaps he just wants these major ports to keep running smoothly. I've seen a port shutdown and it's really ugly.

There is a strong business case to be made for allowing this company to keep doing what it was doing before changing hands. That's what happened here.

I can't say for sure what the "truth" really is.

I find myself "defending" Bush's actions even when I don't agree with them lately, not because I want to defend them, but because those who pass judgment on them don't have complete information yet are so sure of themselves.

What I'm saying is, I don't know, and I have heard little that tells me that others really know, either.

 

[longeyes]

Just like George I, this idiot has chosen his Arab friends over us. He's more concerned with avoiding an insult to the Gulf states than protecting the ports. He does not deserve to be President.

+1

Bush is too compromised to run the show. That's now become obvious.

This attitude that we have to placate our "foreign friends," always be careful to honor THEIR interests, even at the expense of our own, smacks of the State Department mentality that has gotten us into so much trouble over the years. We have too many Bush clones at State "thinking internatiionally."

 

[Biker]

There's a whole lot of Iranian money in the UAE. Iran has a lot of businesses there. What happens if we impose sanctions on Iran? How will this pan out with a state owned business with a contolling interest in some of our largest ports?
Biker

 

[carlrodd]

The Deal is The Deal. No one is saying never trade with Arabs or Muslims. No one is saying Arabs or Muslims can't own anything in the U.S. This is about WHICH ASSETS, WHICH OWNERSHIP, WHICH DEAL. It is very specific. It is about ceding control of vital interests when we don't have to and shouldn't. We don't have to hand over the keys to the house in order to win friends and allies. That is absurd, ridiculous, shameful, cowardly; it is in THE INTEREST OF MUSLIM NATIONS to ally with us to fight radical Islam and global terrorism. We don't have to BUY their support with bad deals and, much worse, pretend that we are helping to fight terrorism by solidifyng commercial contacts that benefit the few rather than the many. I heard at least two of the Bush machiavels yesterday telling me that we desperately needed the UAE because it was a "valued ally," then told we are racists or nativists to oppose The Deal. That, following up on Bush's eagerness to veto a deal he supposedly hadn't known anything about, flipped a switch in my head about Bush and friends. NO MAS.

+1. as if there was anything wrong with being a nativist. i'll happily be a throwback in a throwback country. we don't even know who we are anymore, and we've forgotten what we were. and here some of us are splitting hairs about where republicans and Democrats stand on this one issue. neither group stands for me; that much is clear.

 

[ArmedBear]

+1

Bush is too compromised to run the show. That's now become obvious.

This attitude that we have to placate our "foreign friends," always be careful to honor THEIR interests, even at the expense of our own, smacks of the State Department mentality that has gotten us into so much trouble over the years. We have too many Bush clones at State "thinking internatiionally."

Don't forget that his opponent in the last election based his whole PLATFORM on "thinking internationally."

We'd better get some better options next time. How do we do it?

I've given up on thinking we can get a 3rd party president soon.

Whom can we support as a candidate?

 

[Cosmoline]

What I'm saying is, I don't know, and I have heard little that tells me that others really know, either.

Well, you know they supported the Taliban. And you know they're overwhelminging Muslim and Arab. And you know they provided some of the 9/11 hijackers. And you know they're from a highly unstable part of the world. And you know they're far too close to Iran.

What more do you need to know?

 

[ArmedBear]

Well, you know they supported the Taliban. And you know they're overwhelminging Muslim and Arab. And you know they provided some of the 9/11 hijackers. And you know they're from a highly unstable part of the world. And you know they're far too close to Iran.

What more do you need to know?

I guess what I'd want to know, first and foremost, is whether they'd bite the hand that feeds them. Would they be more or less likely to bomb their OWN business?

Good diplomacy is all about using your potential enemy's self-interest to avoid unnecessary deaths.

 

[Biker]

I guess what I'd want to know, first and foremost, is whether they'd bite the hand that feeds them. Would they be more or less likely to bomb their OWN business?

Good diplomacy is all about using your potential enemy's self-interest to avoid unnecessary deaths.

Is money their primary motivation, or their religion? An honest question.
Biker

 

[Cosmoline]

I guess what I'd want to know, first and foremost, is whether they'd bite the hand that feeds them. Would they be more or less likely to bomb their OWN business?

I'm sure their top level wouldn't. But all it takes is some guy with Cousin Fatwah who can shepherd even ONE container through our already horribly weak port security. The risk of that happening with a UAE owned port management company are vastly greater than with a European owned company.

Remember, OBL and most of the 9/11 terrorists were NOT poor guys from the back woods. They were primarily from westernized, wealthy backgrounds. JUST LIKE THE GUYS WHO RUN THIS PORT MANAGEMENT COMPANY. Heck OBL's dad was a major contractor who worked with the west on many projects. Who's to say none of these guys have a black sheep son they get a job for to straighten the boy out?

 

[RealGun]

I am proud to see the administration take the High Road on this one, as it has done on many other issues. What is appalling is the reaction of Congress without knowing what they are talking about.

I wonder what the Bush Bash of the Week will be on Monday. The Cheney hunting accident business seems like a year ago.

 

[Biker]

The Cheney hunting accident business seems like a year ago.

Not to the lead-poisoned lawyer, I'll bet.

Biker

 

[carlrodd]

I am proud to see the administration take the High Road on this one, as it has done on many other issues. What is appalling is the reaction of Congress without knowing what they are talking about.

I wonder what the Bush Bash of the Week will be on Monday. The Cheney hunting accident business seems like a year ago.

is that a joke? was i wrong for laughing?

 

[ArmedBear]

I'm sure their top level wouldn't. But all it takes is some guy with Cousin Fatwah who can shepherd even ONE container through our already horribly weak port security. The risk of that happening with a UAE owned port management company are vastly greater than with a European owned company.

Uh, when no one even looks at 99% of the containers coming through enormous ports, I think it's hard to argue that there's any more risk.

Get a hold of some nukes, load them in containers with timers to prevent them from going off when loaded, and motion sensors to set them off when unloaded. Send them to a few ports. Doesn't matter who runs the ports. See?

 

[Cosmoline]

I am proud to see the administration take the High Road on this one, as it has done on many other issues. What is appalling is the reaction of Congress without knowing what they are talking about.

I wonder what the Bush Bash of the Week will be on Monday. The Cheney hunting accident business seems like a year ago.

Yes, how dare Congress try to keep the administration from letting the UAE run our ports! We must follow the President. He knows best.

BTW, this is most certainly not the Bush Bash of the Week. Look at the poll results here. Look at the poll results nationwide. Bush is running against the grain of red state and blue on this one. To misquote John ford he's a Texican way out on a limb. Unless Rove can beat some sense into him, that limb is going to snap. It has nada to do with Democrats. The man is simply completely wrong.

 

[Cosmoline]

Uh, when no one even looks at 99% of the containers coming through enormous ports, I think it's hard to argue that there's any more risk.

You're mixing up the issues. I know port security is weak, but that's ALL THE MORE REASON to have someone at the management helm we can really trust. CAUSE WE WON'T BE ABLE TO WATCH THEM!

 

[Camp David]

I am proud to see the administration take the High Road on this one, as it has done on many other issues...

The administration knows that if it lets Congress spit in Dubai's eye over this, real Americans will suffer... Congress is making Homeland Security a nighmare solely so that candiates gain political advantage... this issue has nothing at all to do with port security and everything to do with 2006 elections! UAE should file racial profile suits against every Democrat (and republican) Congressmen/women against this deal! They're bigots and they're not helping national security a whit!

 

[Cosmoline]

So it's racist to oppose giving control of the ports to a government that supported the Taliban? You're going to have to explain how that works.

Camp David--you don't work near DC by any chance, do you ;-)

 

[#shooter]

When your right..

John Kerry and John Edwards, with the help of Jimmy Carter and Michael Moore won the last election for Bush.
Gay marriage and abortion carry a certain percentage of the electorate -- smaller than the Republicans think, IMO
"Swing voters" on average don't give a crap about abortion or gay marriage because they're not firmly in one camp or the other, and because these issues seem largely artificial to many people. Their mixed opinions cancel each other out, one way or another.

Now politically, the port thing is interesting. On the one hand, it makes the Bush Administration look like it doesn't take national security seriously, which, in turn makes it look like the PATRIOT Act, etc. are more about an internal power grab than anything else. On the other hand, the very Democrats who have been downplaying the threat of international terrorism for a while now, are all of a sudden screaming about how big this threat is. This makes them look somewhat silly in an era where their quotes from 6 months back can be found and replicated easily. And many Republicans have distanced themselves from the Bush administration on this; this makes the issue, such as it is, about the administration rather than the party. This only matters politically because Bush won't be running again, but that's a crucial fact. If the GOP is seen as synonymous with Bush, that doesn't bode well for their next candidate. But Hillary is a divider, not a uniter. The next election might end up being about individuals, too, more than parties.

Your right. Kerry was disingenuous, Edwards was a non-starter, Carter and Moore need to shut up if they want the Dems to win. The Dems are starting to see the light so they are distancing themselves from Brady, trying to get cozier with religion, and appear stronger on defense. Many State Dems are not stopping pro-guns laws like they used to with the exception of the usual suspects (CA, NY, NJ, etc). I do think the moral issues helped the Rep base get out the vote, but I think your correct to say swing voters cancelled each other out.

The port issue is very interesting. This admin has been pushing for tighter laws and restrictions yet they don’t see the irony of the port situation. It has a tinge of cronyism. I personally think this admin’s secrecy is starting to hurt it. They are trying to pull this “trust us” bit with the ports, but Katrina proved we shouldn’t trust them. It is ironic that the government wants to listen to what we say on the phone, obtain Google’s records, and collect information from public libraries, etc yet they claim executive privilege and hide in secrecy.

Does anyone find it weird that once this deal started getting exposed the President admitted “he wasn’t aware of the deal until it was done?” What is that about?
Is “I didn’t know” a defense to the criticism he is now getting? Then threating a veto after he said he wasn’t aware of the deal until it was done is also strange. Or is it just me.

The Daily Show loves to show clips of politicians from either side contradicting themselves on policy. It is lame that Kerry got tagged for flip flopping when it is so pervasive on both sides, incuding Bush and this ports lease.

 

[ArmedBear]

You're mixing up the issues. I know port security is weak, but that's ALL THE MORE REASON to have someone at the management helm we can really trust. CAUSE WE WON'T BE ABLE TO WATCH THEM!

Nukes go off in Long Beach, Seattle, Hoboken and New Orleans. Doesn't matter who's watching.

They're from some port on the other side of the world, where we have no control over what gets loaded. Managers sitting in offices in downtown San Diego chatting up Chinese exporters don't matter.

 

[Cosmoline]

So basically you just want us to give up? Maybe it is pointless. But I'd still like to put up some semblance of a fight before letting the mullahs take direct control.